Adams v. Bullock
Citation: 227 N.Y. 208 (1919)
Facts
A boy was swinging a long wire along a public street. The wire contacted the overhead wires of a trolley line, causing the boy to be electrocuted. He sued the trolley company for negligently running an electrified wire overhead near a street where children might swing objects.
Issue
Was the trolley company negligent in failing to insulate or enclose overhead wires that could be contacted by objects swung by passersby?
Holding
No. The trolley company was not negligent. The risk that a child would swing a long wire that would reach overhead trolley lines was so extraordinary and unusual that a reasonable company would not be required to take precautions against it. The court distinguished between risks that are reasonably foreseeable and those that are too remote.
Rule
Negligence — foreseeability limitation: The duty of care is limited to risks that are reasonably foreseeable. Even a defendant who has created a hazardous condition is not negligent with respect to harms that flow from bizarre, extraordinary uses that no reasonable person would anticipate. “Extraordinary” risks do not create a duty of care.
Significance
- Judge Cardozo’s opinion on the foreseeability limit on negligence
- Illustrates that not every possible risk creates a duty to guard against it — only foreseeable risks
- Paired with Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad (the zone of foreseeable danger / duty to foreseeable plaintiffs) and Wagon Mound I (type of harm must be foreseeable)
- Shows the scope of the reasonable foreseeability inquiry: the trolley company need not anticipate every conceivable misuse of its equipment